**1. Introduction**

Located within the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot (IBBH), Vietnam is ranked as the 16th most biodiversity-rich country in the world. It hosts 110 Key Biodiversity Areas [1] and 62 Important Bird Areas [2]. The country also claims two World Natural Heritage sites, eight Ramsar wetlands, eight United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) biosphere reserves, and two Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) heritage parks. Underlying this list of conservation governance arrangements is the country's high level of species endemism. It is estimated that 10% of Vietnam's plants are endemic to the country [3], while 12 known species of mammals, 7 species of birds, 48 species of reptiles, 33 species of amphibians, and 80 species of freshwater fish are endemic to Vietnam [4].

To conserve nature and biodiversity, Vietnam has established 164 protected areas, comprising of 30 national parks, 58 nature conservation areas, 10 species and habitat reserves, 46 land/seascape protected areas, and 20 scientific and experimental forest areas [5, 6]. The legal basis of the protected system is the restriction of resource exploitation which can adversely affect biodiversity, natural and cultural landscapes, and scientific resources (Decree 117/2010/ND-CP). Under the rigid set of policies and law enforcement, the protected area system has been evaluated as not supportive of local livelihoods [7–10], although about 80% of the protected areas are inhabited [11]. This leads to the exclusion of the people out of the system since its establishment [12] and degrading relations between local people and the protected areas [13, 14].

To manage the system, the government plays the sole role. At the national level, the Vietnam Forestry Administration (VFA), within the Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (MARD), is primarily responsible for coordinating the national protected area system, including the direct administration of six inter-provincial national parks [15, 16]. Where other habitats and resources involved, protected area management can also involve other branches of the government. For instance, wetlands are divided between the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) and MARD [17]. MARD remains the main authority responsible for marine protected areas [18]. But if cultural or landscape protection is involved in a protected area, then the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is also involved.

At the provincial level, the Provincial People's Committees (PPCs) are responsible for the administration of all other protected areas [12]. Based on the size and importance of forests, PPCs might assign district governments to manage and develop activities such as tourism [19]. But the majority of Vietnam's protected areas is managed by the provincial Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARDs), in collaboration with the provincial Forest Protection Department of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (DOCST) which fall directly under the control of the PPCs [16, 20]. Protected areas that are small in size and not managed by the districtlevel Forest Protection Department report directly to PPCs. At the operational level, management boards of protected areas are staffed by officials assigned by provincial DARDs and responsible for management and protection [21]. Due to this fragmentation of institutional arrangement, it requires a lot of efforts placed on the coordination for achieving the effectiveness in protected area management [22]. As acknowledged by the Vietnamese government itself, the coordination between the authorities is plagued by overlapping legislation and a lack of clear division between institutional mandates for management by the various authorities involved [4, 5, 16].

Although the relative large number of protected areas has been established, there is a continuous decrease in quality of forests, biodiversity, and wildlife habitats because the government faces shortages in human and financial resources to carry out the management [12]. Beside deficiencies in institutions, it has been dealing with big challenges in nature conservation when there are millions of people still directly or indirectly depending on these protected areas for their livelihoods [23]. According to the Government (2014), about 20 million people in Vietnam have main or partial income from aquatic resources and 20–50% of income of 25 million people from non-timber forest products [24]. This is fueled with the issues of population growth putting more pressures on resource exploitation and socioeconomic development, threatening Vietnam's natural resources. Moreover, overlapping land use rights is another central issue when 49% of protected areas remain dealing with conflicts over the ambiguities that arise over access to both land and forest resources. Relations between managers, rangers, and local communities still struggled over livelihood and conservation and between statutory and customary laws ([25], p. 11). Conflicts between local users and authorities responsible for nature conservation commonly happen when the former have been forcefully excluded from protected areas [26].

**57**

*Institutionalizing Co-Management for a Sustainable Future of Protected Areas…*

Vietnam by ways of integrating nature conservation and development.

**2. Concepts of sustainable development and natural resource** 

Sustainability originated with the 1980 World Conservation Strategy of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It is considered as a strategic approach to the integration of conservation and development consistent with the objectives of ecosystem maintenance, the preservation of genetic diversity, and the sustainable utilization of resources. In general, "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Today, sustainable development remains a controversial topic with different philosophies ranging from resource conservation to socioeconomic equality through environmental justice [35]. Although it views a holistic approach to the relationship between man and the environment, various actors emphasize differing facets of sustainable development depending on their needs. Moreover, cultural and economic differences also lead to different percep-

Recently, sustainable development is understood and related to four key aspects, comprising of environment, development, society, and linkages, among poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. The environment composing of nature with biophysical domains and human with socio-economic-political settings constitutes an interdependent global environment and world ecology. By considering the physical-biological basis, the development should not exceed the ability of the environment to natural resources and services. The development is not just as an economic activity but as a process of qualitative and equitable growth. In process of development, sustainability should be positioned in political-institutional arrangements to restructure public power and create social decision-making. For social development, it is important to focus on the well-being of communities, creating jobs, and considering income distribution. By considering society as an interdependent and a world community, global economic growth cannot succeed with an uneven distribution of wealth. And it is worth remembering that environmental problems do not know territorial or economic barriers, national or international, and thus institutional arrangements of development will not just affect the quality of life of some nations. In the process of development, cultural values and beliefs also need to be recognized and considered time by time to guide and justify anthropic actions. Altogether these four key aspects direct the development toward sustainability.

A combination of poor surveillance and weak active engagement with local communities depending on the resources causes problems for protected areas. McElwee [27] argued that extending the protected network areas is not feasible in the case of Vietnam because of the limited capacity of institutions. In recognition of the same issues, the Vietnamese government has attempted through a variety of programs to improve community collaboration in the protected area system and improve the protection of forest habitat and biodiversity [28]. Co-management approach has strong potentials to resolve the issues as suggested by international scholars when it is supposed to provide a meaningful participation through joint decision-making [29–31], a means of conflict resolution [32], and a reduction in resource management cost with more locally relevant management plans for poverty reduction through diversifying economic activities [33, 34]. And thus it is exactly going to contribute to the sustainable development of

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86930*

**co-management**

**2.1 Sustainable development**

tions of sustainable development [35].

*Institutionalizing Co-Management for a Sustainable Future of Protected Areas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86930*

A combination of poor surveillance and weak active engagement with local communities depending on the resources causes problems for protected areas. McElwee [27] argued that extending the protected network areas is not feasible in the case of Vietnam because of the limited capacity of institutions. In recognition of the same issues, the Vietnamese government has attempted through a variety of programs to improve community collaboration in the protected area system and improve the protection of forest habitat and biodiversity [28]. Co-management approach has strong potentials to resolve the issues as suggested by international scholars when it is supposed to provide a meaningful participation through joint decision-making [29–31], a means of conflict resolution [32], and a reduction in resource management cost with more locally relevant management plans for poverty reduction through diversifying economic activities [33, 34]. And thus it is exactly going to contribute to the sustainable development of Vietnam by ways of integrating nature conservation and development.

## **2. Concepts of sustainable development and natural resource co-management**

#### **2.1 Sustainable development**

*Protected Areas, National Parks and Sustainable Future*

protected areas [13, 14].

habitat reserves, 46 land/seascape protected areas, and 20 scientific and experimental forest areas [5, 6]. The legal basis of the protected system is the restriction of resource exploitation which can adversely affect biodiversity, natural and cultural landscapes, and scientific resources (Decree 117/2010/ND-CP). Under the rigid set of policies and law enforcement, the protected area system has been evaluated as not supportive of local livelihoods [7–10], although about 80% of the protected areas are inhabited [11]. This leads to the exclusion of the people out of the system since its establishment [12] and degrading relations between local people and the

To manage the system, the government plays the sole role. At the national level, the Vietnam Forestry Administration (VFA), within the Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (MARD), is primarily responsible for coordinating the national protected area system, including the direct administration of six inter-provincial national parks [15, 16]. Where other habitats and resources involved, protected area management can also involve other branches of the government. For instance, wetlands are divided between the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) and MARD [17]. MARD remains the main authority responsible for marine protected areas [18]. But if cultural or landscape protection is involved in a protected area, then the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is also involved. At the provincial level, the Provincial People's Committees (PPCs) are responsible for the administration of all other protected areas [12]. Based on the size and importance of forests, PPCs might assign district governments to manage and develop activities such as tourism [19]. But the majority of Vietnam's protected areas is managed by the provincial Departments of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARDs), in collaboration with the provincial Forest Protection Department of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (DOCST) which fall directly under the control of the PPCs [16, 20]. Protected areas that are small in size and not managed by the districtlevel Forest Protection Department report directly to PPCs. At the operational level, management boards of protected areas are staffed by officials assigned by provincial DARDs and responsible for management and protection [21]. Due to this fragmentation of institutional arrangement, it requires a lot of efforts placed on the coordination for achieving the effectiveness in protected area management [22]. As acknowledged by the Vietnamese government itself, the coordination between the authorities is plagued by overlapping legislation and a lack of clear division between institutional mandates for management by the various authorities involved [4, 5, 16]. Although the relative large number of protected areas has been established, there is a continuous decrease in quality of forests, biodiversity, and wildlife habitats because the government faces shortages in human and financial resources to carry out the management [12]. Beside deficiencies in institutions, it has been dealing with big challenges in nature conservation when there are millions of people still directly or indirectly depending on these protected areas for their livelihoods [23]. According to the Government (2014), about 20 million people in Vietnam have main or partial income from aquatic resources and 20–50% of income of 25 million people from non-timber forest products [24]. This is fueled with the issues of population growth putting more pressures on resource exploitation and socioeconomic development, threatening Vietnam's natural resources. Moreover, overlapping land use rights is another central issue when 49% of protected areas remain dealing with conflicts over the ambiguities that arise over access to both land and forest resources. Relations between managers, rangers, and local communities still struggled over livelihood and conservation and between statutory and customary laws ([25], p. 11). Conflicts between local users and authorities responsible for nature conservation commonly happen when the former have been forcefully

**56**

excluded from protected areas [26].

Sustainability originated with the 1980 World Conservation Strategy of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It is considered as a strategic approach to the integration of conservation and development consistent with the objectives of ecosystem maintenance, the preservation of genetic diversity, and the sustainable utilization of resources. In general, "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Today, sustainable development remains a controversial topic with different philosophies ranging from resource conservation to socioeconomic equality through environmental justice [35]. Although it views a holistic approach to the relationship between man and the environment, various actors emphasize differing facets of sustainable development depending on their needs. Moreover, cultural and economic differences also lead to different perceptions of sustainable development [35].

Recently, sustainable development is understood and related to four key aspects, comprising of environment, development, society, and linkages, among poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation. The environment composing of nature with biophysical domains and human with socio-economic-political settings constitutes an interdependent global environment and world ecology. By considering the physical-biological basis, the development should not exceed the ability of the environment to natural resources and services. The development is not just as an economic activity but as a process of qualitative and equitable growth. In process of development, sustainability should be positioned in political-institutional arrangements to restructure public power and create social decision-making. For social development, it is important to focus on the well-being of communities, creating jobs, and considering income distribution. By considering society as an interdependent and a world community, global economic growth cannot succeed with an uneven distribution of wealth. And it is worth remembering that environmental problems do not know territorial or economic barriers, national or international, and thus institutional arrangements of development will not just affect the quality of life of some nations. In the process of development, cultural values and beliefs also need to be recognized and considered time by time to guide and justify anthropic actions. Altogether these four key aspects direct the development toward sustainability.

Nature conservation is closely linked to sustainable development, particularly in the developing countries. It is evident that nature conservation is not possible without sustainable development which is aiming at both societal welfare and environmental protection [36–38]. In Vietnam as elsewhere of the developing world, protected areas do not receive the support of the people because they do not have a positive impact on people's livelihoods and do not support the development of cultural, social, political, natural, and human resources. People do not appreciate the management processes around the reserves [14]. And nature conservation only improves when relations between protected areas and communities are improved through the improvements of management processes and conservation and socioeconomic outcomes [38]. Therefore, in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, nature conservation is highly embedded across most of the Sustainable Development Goals [39]. Many protected areas around the world have already combined approaches to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in which they facilitate sustainable economic activities in both aspects of environmental ecology and means of livelihood for communities [36, 40].

Additionally, convention on biological diversity (CBD) recognizes communities to play a huge role in biodiversity conservation and preserve traditional cultural values. Commitment to recognize and institutionalize community protected areas has been promoted globally and included in the regulation of the convention on indigenous peoples, local knowledge, and traditional resource use according to the customary law. In the context of CBD implementation, the contents of community protected areas are identified in Aichi Objective 11 on ensuring specific numbers of the area worldwide and Objective 18 with respect to knowledge, indigenous traditional initiatives, and practices in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In order to implement the international agreements and treaties, many countries have promoted the institutionalization of protected areas managed and registered by communities in the global data system. The leading countries in this work include India, Nepal, China, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Benin, Australia, Canada, Bolivia, and Madagascar, of which many neighbor Vietnam [41]. Therefore, this can be seen as opportunities for co-management to engage indigenous communities in arrangements, contributing to the cultural diversity and the emergence of sustainable societies across the world and so Vietnam alike.

#### **2.2 Natural resource co-management**

Co-management has been adopted internationally in response to the perceived failure of centralized management in natural resources [12, 33, 42–45]. It is a process of solving-problem management in which actors at different levels and scales interact to adjust their positions, roles, and activities to harmonize with emerging contexts and circumstances surrounding a natural resource [29]. In this process, power is a result, leading to modifications on the rule of the game and creating winwin solutions [46]. Today, it is defined as an arrangement where responsibility and right for resource management are shared between the government and user groups [44, 47], acknowledging the important role of the people who are living around the resources and impacting on resource uses and management [46]. Therefore, comanagement arrangement often includes the devolution of responsibilities associated with day-to-day management of natural resources and in some cases a transfer of power and authority from national government agencies to communities and subnational governments [29, 48, 49]. In terms of participation, co-management arrangement engages local community groups or resource users in decision-making, implementation, and enforcement [50–52]. In order to ensure the participation,

**59**

*Institutionalizing Co-Management for a Sustainable Future of Protected Areas…*

co-management focuses on developing effective local institutions and an enabling environment for sustainable management [37]. According to Jentoft, co-management may be the best available solution to the legitimacy problem because the center to the implementation of co-management is the design of new structure legitimized to bring together stakeholders for decision-making and implementation [53]. This design can be built up on existing arrangements at site levels or supported by donor funding and directed by central government in a top-down manner [54]. Based on the exercise of co-management at locals or on-site levels, adaptive governance evolved. It is a novel type of environmental governance that has arisen in systems characterized by large degrees of dynamism, complexity, and uncertainty [55, 56]. It combines learning, knowledge generation, and problem-solving of the adaptive management with the stakeholder power-sharing and conflict resolution of co-management [55, 57]. Folke et al. ([55], p. 8) broadly define adaptive co-management as "a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of trial-and-error," which is known to evolve through stages [58]. In context of conservation conflicts, adaptive co-management is evidenced supporting conflict solving by providing collaborative decision-making processes which involve all stakeholders equitably, trial innovative ideas, and include evaluation to provide learning [56, 59]. It also promotes local sustainability through capacity development and trust building, particularly as if protected area authorities

To combine nature conservation and sustainable development, many countries have shifted the modes of protected area management from centralized and nonparticipatory ones to co-management in order to benefit from co-management arrangement and exercise adaptive governance. In order to do so, it requires at least three factors, including the presence of institutional entrepreneurs, a dense central core of network actors, and the prevalence of horizontal ties and vertical linkages held by the community-based organizations responsible for the management of the resource [52]. Lawmakers can set up legislation for co-management in which it can shape decentralized management by recognizing and devolving responsibility to community-based management systems [60, 61]. And this is a necessary ingredient in co-management arrangement [53]. And in the case of Vietnam, although institutionalizing co-management in nature conservation is a must to achieve both ecological protection and sustainable development, it takes time to promote step by

**3. Institutionalizing co-management in Vietnam protected areas for sustainable development: the case of Xuan Thuy National Park**

To overcome deficiencies in the protected area management, Vietnam has piloted co-management in many protected areas since 2001 through a number of foreign-funded projects [62, 63]. To some extent, the pilots have not led to institutional reforms in protected area management arrangement, but the concept of co-management step-by-step has been included in official documents such as national strategy protected area management in 2003 because of its high potentials [20, 63]. However, in case of Xuan Thuy National Park, co-management has been applied and formed institutions for nature conservation and sustainable development. Based on in-depth interviews with the park management board and literature reviews, the case will be narrative in order to prevail the process of co-management installation in Xuan Thuy National Park and how it supports to overcome shortcom-

ings emerged from the park's centralized management.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86930*

become bridging organizations [57].

step to become legitimized.

#### *Institutionalizing Co-Management for a Sustainable Future of Protected Areas… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86930*

co-management focuses on developing effective local institutions and an enabling environment for sustainable management [37]. According to Jentoft, co-management may be the best available solution to the legitimacy problem because the center to the implementation of co-management is the design of new structure legitimized to bring together stakeholders for decision-making and implementation [53]. This design can be built up on existing arrangements at site levels or supported by donor funding and directed by central government in a top-down manner [54].

Based on the exercise of co-management at locals or on-site levels, adaptive governance evolved. It is a novel type of environmental governance that has arisen in systems characterized by large degrees of dynamism, complexity, and uncertainty [55, 56]. It combines learning, knowledge generation, and problem-solving of the adaptive management with the stakeholder power-sharing and conflict resolution of co-management [55, 57]. Folke et al. ([55], p. 8) broadly define adaptive co-management as "a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of trial-and-error," which is known to evolve through stages [58]. In context of conservation conflicts, adaptive co-management is evidenced supporting conflict solving by providing collaborative decision-making processes which involve all stakeholders equitably, trial innovative ideas, and include evaluation to provide learning [56, 59]. It also promotes local sustainability through capacity development and trust building, particularly as if protected area authorities become bridging organizations [57].

To combine nature conservation and sustainable development, many countries have shifted the modes of protected area management from centralized and nonparticipatory ones to co-management in order to benefit from co-management arrangement and exercise adaptive governance. In order to do so, it requires at least three factors, including the presence of institutional entrepreneurs, a dense central core of network actors, and the prevalence of horizontal ties and vertical linkages held by the community-based organizations responsible for the management of the resource [52]. Lawmakers can set up legislation for co-management in which it can shape decentralized management by recognizing and devolving responsibility to community-based management systems [60, 61]. And this is a necessary ingredient in co-management arrangement [53]. And in the case of Vietnam, although institutionalizing co-management in nature conservation is a must to achieve both ecological protection and sustainable development, it takes time to promote step by step to become legitimized.
